Meanwhile I also own a Tesla, and am using a CarPlay adapter with it. Maps is better, particularly lane guidance and actually telling me which motorway junction number I'm coming off at. I can share an ETA with my contacts. I can listen to subscriber-only (paid) Podcasts. I can use WhatsApp (via voice of course), something sadly essential in the UK as the vast majority use that. I can listen to audiobooks from other than Audible. I can use the BBC Sounds app. I can...

You get the idea. I agree with you about integration - the time I will use the built-in map is if I'm on a longer journey that needs charging on the way, or if the journey is so short that none of the above really matters.

Personally I hope the rumours about CarPlay integration being worked on by Tesla are true, although I'd be surprised I must admit. But for me - works well.

I mean that's still a failure of article selection.

I'd guess, but stressing guess and agree would need to be studied, that your bias would be correct. I'm not necessarily a fan of the every single person's study plan is different school of thought, and think there's a lot to be gained from structure.

On the socialising I'm not quite so sure though - it's definitely changed the nature of it though. My 'kids' (now all adults, youngest about to enter final year of university) socialising all the time on-line. Voice chats with friends, Discord is how they organise meeting up etc.. They've also all three kept a healthy in-person socialisation side too, which is the part I was initially worried by when I saw this panning out over several years. I think that last bit is key - if you can balance both, then you get the benefits of going out with your friends with also the benefits of having a wider geographical friend base and the ability to stay in touch more easily.

Perhaps read the actual comment? I am agreeing with the study - quoted directly: ""The findings suggest that screen time can support children's and adolescents' cognitive processing. Presumably, the essential point here is what kind of things they do in their screen time. Teachers and parents should encourage children to use devices and screens in such ways that promote active thinking, problem-solving, creativity and learning," states Doctoral Researcher Petri Jalanko from the University of Jyvaskyla.".

Yes, it's nice to see a study backing it of course but this has been intuitively obvious for a while. The "screen time is killing our kids!" crowd is just the latest generational re-incarnation of the "computer games are killing our kids" from the 1980s, or "Dungeons and Dragons is killing our kids!" from the late 70s through the 80s, "TV is killing our kids!"...right back to Socrates moaning about writing. Just another moral panic.

Since we're in 80s mode, let's quote The Karate Kid: "concentrate on quality of what you know, not quantity". It's the nature of the screen time that's important, not necessarily the raw bulk. Are you interacting with people online, are you reading stuff? Are you watching some videos where you learn some things as well as just the latest cat videos or TikTok dance? In short, are you using the screen as a portal to the generalities of life instead of just watching brainrot all day every day?

I suspect knowing that will be key to whether the screen time is hurting or helping. And as ever, a balance is required. 100% screen and no in-person interactions is obviously harmful, provably so thanks to the pandemic providing us with data here. I'd also posit that 100% outside and in-person will be good, but not as rounded as a decent mix between the two since you gain access to different experiences online.

"potentially enabling instantaneous exchanges of information across vast distances"

NO this has nothing to do with that. This is the first slashdot post in memory that should be fucking deleted. Disgraceful.

A used disc sits in inventory incurring a small but real cost each month. Your calculus to set price considers this. Something that incurs no cost does not experience this cost pressure.

The existence of used physical games is a huge help for consumers. Digital only isn't good.

Investors are chasing a company that achieves some kind of AI singularity. Let's set aside the fact that there's no reason to believe there is anything but diminishing marginal returns by making marginal refinements to current frontier models. Let's imagine someone hits the jackpot and gets, not even AGI, but a system that's as far ahead of today's frontier model are ahead of 2020's GPT 2.0 in performance.

Globally AI revenues are 150 billion, against a cumulative burn rate of 450 billion. A model that is a generation ahead of others would almost certainly capture the lion's share of that revenue.

If AGI magically appears as a Sam Altman has promised investors it will, a hundred million is way too low. Add, maybe, another zero to the revenues.

Conservatively, a safer assumption is that frontier models will get marginally better based on refinements in training and reinforcement and the other bits and bobs that go into these systems. The nobody is winning the lion's share of anything, at least overnight. But you have to define "safe". By "safe" I mean unlikely to lose money. But some investors are clearly defining "safe" as "having the greatest chance of owning a piece of the biggest thing ever."

I'm not following this super-closely, but if Anthropic is pursuing adding multi-step model based reasoning to their system, that could be the basis of a generational leap in capability. But if that is an approach that looks like it has a chance of working, then their competitors are no doubt pursuing the same thing. In that case you'd expect the revenue pie to grow as the scope of model utilty increases, but that growth to be split among several competitors. This could credibly result in a revenue stream for some of them that is as big as the entire industry's revenue stream today. But there's going to be hell to pay on the data center impacts end of things.

Those were human made bugs. The point of the article is that AI is finding real actual bugs at a high rate.

Just for context, when its predecessor RIPA, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, came in it was said to be used only for cases such as terrorism etc.. Instead, it was found that councils started using to check people were putting things in the right rubbish bins for collection.

Robust safeguards indeed.

I've honestly no idea if it's possible, but if they could find a way to get Steam Input into there or the equivalent of their own then I could use it. I have an original Steam Controller, you used to be able to use it on non-Steam games but for a few releases now Steam took that ability away. Some way of emulating or creating an alternative to Steam Input would be superb.

Check your player's handbook, it's definitely an upgrade from studded leather.

Are you nuts? This is the most interesting news in quite some time, at least from a nerd perspective.
This story has everything you'd want- an insufficient randomization problem, a software bug that makes it subtlety fail and take the wrong path that makes a lot of keys guessable, and then, years later, an eventual exploit where someone, offline, reproduced a ton of these failed key creations, checked the blockchain to see which ones had stuff, set up a burst of activity that would move all the bitcoin at essentially the same time.

It has all kinds of interesting angles- for instance, you can ask if the writers of the software actually were the same as the eventual hackers years later. It's possible that this bug was deliberate, and plenty of cryptocrimes are actually inside jobs. You can also ask why people are so into the idea of hardware wallets in the first place, as using the reference wallet produces a wallet.dat that can be encrypted with veracrypt and stored in a zillion places (and so can the password), and why is that not the first order of business for people looking to store assets with big numbers? Or someone could come in and advertise their own favorite cold wallet instead.

This is a very solid and interesting news story.

For several years now, any reasonable simple question has had Search-Engine-Optimized useless shit at the top of google- these days it generally can be counted on to fill the entire first page. Google helpfully highlights the relevant text by default so they spend money making sure google can't displau that text but instead displays an ad.

I just googled:
odds of rolling three sixes on three dice

The AI has the 1/216 answer and the reasoning and the math and the links to the people on forums explaining all that. That is actually the search engine right there; it actually links me to people who have explained this to each other over the years.

The top link is to reddit and claims the odds are "180 to where", and eventually has a bunch of links (reddit and google signed an agreement to stop other search engines from reading reddit well). If I click in there I will find the answer. But what if it wasn't?

Under that is stackexchange, and all the wording is chosen so I can't see the answer. Clicking through the answer is present at least. Below that is a dice probability calculator that can make the answer, and something called thoughtco which has the answer in the summary. This is the first non-AI spot on the page with the answer.

Overall the AI summary has been godsent, but if more time has been spent fighting SEO it would not be so needed.